About Me

Thursday, 31 January 2013

Someone we
know has the job of attending meetings of senior members of an international
organisation with a global presence.
Minutes have to be kept, records of the meeting also and all the complex
business of agenda’s, notices of meetings, circulation of documents, drafts and
the rest are necessary.

It is
critical that they should be done properly because the organisation is
transparent in its discussions and dealings and fully engaged with the
media. Also, it has a very tight budget
and is dependent on voluntary support.
Add to that all the key members and others have to earn their living by
other means.

This is
done from that person’s flat on a laptop and the whole lot is done on the web,
conferences, discussions, communications and all, the whole bang shoot. That person may trot out to the shops nearby
for food and the necessities of life, but travel is not the first of the
worries or requirements.

Repeat, the
organisation is on a very tight budget for its administration, management and
other top managerial work. Many of our
companies and especially government and the rest are not. They can charge it to others and do.

So it is
arguable that given technically what is now available and the likely
developments in the next couple of decades could make business and political
travel as we know it and as it has developed over the last decades of the 20th
Century into the first decade of the 21st both much less needed and
perhaps even a liability to effective and proper communication.

Groups of
tired people with travel lag and disrupted schedules who are forced into all
the carting about nations or continents to then make decisions in an air of
panic or urgency and with the worries of physical movement to contend with is
not the best or the most sensible way to do this.

Such events
or meetings could be rare and with a clear purpose and timetable. That they occur simply for grandstanding,
photo-opportunities or on the pretence of “doing something” or “being at the
heart of” or to attempt to add weight to some specious set of words to please
the media fashions of the moment is still a major risk.

There is
also the other, more important risk of such meetings, especially with the
elements not recorded or made public may demand secrecy for purposes that could
be questionable or known to be damaging to others. There might be instances that do need a
limited amount of personal contact but it could be reducing by the day.

At present
there seem to be rather too many of these grand exercises for my liking amongst
the present generation of leaders around the world. This could be one of the major reasons for
the world’s troubles. Too many tired men
(mostly) making hasty, ill informed decisions in secret for short term
advantage and to hell with the rest.

In the UK at present
we have all the gaming over what is laughingly called “transport policy”,
largely exercises in political showmanship and designed to benefit the
financial sector, the one that does most of the travelling these days at our
expense. The Big Ideas of very big
projects have all the usual claims for GDP and jobs.

But as so
many of the companies and agencies involved are not UK and so much of the
procurement, work and finance also comes from elsewhere then there may well be
little real benefit domestically.

What is
likely is that as none of the projects are ever likely to make a return on the
investment and when revenues do arise some two decades from now they will fall
far short of running costs. The “growth”
which will not be growth will bequeath huge liabilities to those who follow us.

At present
our government has botched two major rail franchises, the West Coast and the
Great Western and others have run into serious trouble in the recent past. It could be argued that HST2 is needed because
we are unable to sort out the arrangements for the existing lines.

There is a
long history of government inspired error, interference and blundering that
helped to both worsen ongoing problems and cause key operational change and
investment in existing facilities to be disregarded.

As for new
airports and related facilities if the government cannot be trusted to make
decisions about local roads and railways can it be trusted with its ideas and
figures for international or major airports?

In a country
littered with the existing and the remains of former air facilities together
with a dense former network of railways there seems to be little or no idea of
how to bring them together or engage in rational thinking. It all seems to be on the hoof reactions to
old issues that have resurfaced.

Inevitably,
we have the bleating that all the big ideas are necessary for big
business. But with much real business
now changing its shape and location, no reliable forecasts for either the cost
of energy for travel or the numbers of people who might be able to afford to
travel in two decades time it is all guesswork.

A recent
headline that suggests we need a new major London airport so that more Chinese
can come to buy consumer goods made largely in the Far East which are fashion
brands owned by overseas based companies just about sums all the thinking up.

Must go,
there is a lot of key information arising from discussions promised to
relations in several continents to send off before I have my afternoon cup of
tea.

Wednesday, 30 January 2013

For a long
while now I have found that one regular source for many stories in the main
media is the Science Daily web site. For
any hapless intern or late running journo’ it can be a treasure house of
potential items which with a bit of summary and reworking can be made into a
printable or viewable story.

Quite often
indeed there is a “hot story” claimed to be from determined work that is given
a slant or edge to make a point to the punters.
“The Mail” is one newspaper that makes free and sometimes imaginative
use of this web site.

The trouble
is the hacks that work for the main media often do not quite understand what
the article they borrow is really driving at.
Sometimes they make a mess of it.
Usually there are subtleties missed or caveats ignored.

On
advantage of this web site is that it can be possible to go back to source and
see the fuller item in the shape of its original publication. This can be very instructive if compared
against what the main media might make of it.

The story below
about ransom practice in medieval warfare was intriguing because it puts the
fighting in this era into an altogether different perspective.

Many of the
key fighting men, the Captains and Sergeants who did the business, were
mercenaries, paid men who did not necessarily act from personal loyalties or
any of our modern notions of nationalism

It might
explain why down the years the rulers and elites were anxious to gain and keep
control over the way men actually functioned in the battles they were asked to
fight.

In later
centuries when the cannon and the musket and later rifles put the killing and
contact at a distance and changed all this, as did the later murderous industrialisation
of the battlefields.

Given the
way that Chivalry was supposed to work for the horsed elite, if indeed lower
down the ranks in some sphere of the battlefields or indeed the way a battle
was conducted was less about killing and more about winning and taking
prisoners then it makes the typical film or blood and thunder productions very
wrong.

Of course,
this introduces elements of uncertainty into the warfare. Certainly, there were times when a bloodbath
was intended or happened if the combat went out of control. All too often these were members of one
family were seeking to wrest power from their siblings or cousins.

In our
modern age in the conflicts we get into the West seems to have the idea that to
inflict a defeat or two should be enough and then we might negotiate. But what if our enemies neither want to end
the fight nor to talk?

Tuesday, 29 January 2013

With petrol
(gas) prices due to go up in the UK shortly and a lot of confusing debate on
fuels of the present and future, there is a lot to wonder about.

Today on
The Oil Drum saw this one, to the effect that prices are and will be high which
will do for today’s post. It is intended
to be a corrective to many of the assertions and assumptions in the media.

Sunday, 27 January 2013

The argument about “economic growth” has been inflamed again
by the latest GDP figures suggesting a marginal recessionary trend. It has given a chance for some grandstanding
by politicians.

The measure of growth is figures based on money flows that
can be calculated. There are two
problems with this. One is that a great
deal of the supposed “growth” for some years now is simply increased money
movements.

Another is that what is calculated can only be what is seen
and accounted for. Given our recent awareness
of the scale of fraud, duplicity and general mayhem in the financial sectors in
recent years, not only is some of it fictitious but there is also a lot simply
not accounted for.

Roughly, it is the modern equipment of the medieval debates
about the numbers of angels that might be found on the head of a pin. Just as medieval thinkers were inclined
either to invent ancient sources for their claims or at least attribute sayings
to more ancient fathers of the church who did not say them, GDP is what you say
it is.

Whether it bears much relationship to what is actually
happening in either the real world or the real economy that provides the
crucial goods and services is another matter.
Given that all our recent “democratic” governments have been long on
policies but very short on truth it is unlikely.

For an item which is not too long and offers an opinion on
the current state of the UK
economy and its prospects see the link from Zero Hedge below. It does not make happy reading.

Essentially, our present government took over a wreck but is
giving up on salvage. Telling the world
that “Britain
is open for business” what it means is that they are selling off what cargo
remains and what valuables might be retrieved.

Friday, 25 January 2013

When it
emerged that the theme that the great political minds at Davos were supposed to
be on about was “Dynamic Resilience” the first thought that this sounded like
something for sale at the naughty shop on our local High Street.

This street
has changed a great deal in recent years.
The naughty shop was once a gentleman’s outfitters, how things change,
but there is perhaps a continuity here that reflects our changing society.

The great
sensation this week was the “ball boy” who tried to help his home team, SwanseaCity
overcome Chelsea
in their League Cup semi-final by hanging on to the ball in the last minutes to
waste time and was kicked for his pains.

At first
all the sympathy was for the ball boy, if only because the Chelsea player who tried to get the ball was
a Belgian. Later it emerged that the
ball boy was a stroppy teenager who had previously announced his intentions on
the internet.

Also, his
father is a wealthy man who volunteered his son and heir for the job because
others had more sense than to hang around soccer grounds in the freezing cold
and they were short of ball boys. He was
a sort of media intern in his way.

There were
other opinions about the matter. It was
reported that Joey Barton, a footballer famous for upsetting people and direct
physical methods, felt the boy should have been kicked a lot harder. In a way it was Dynamic Resilience in a
different form.

The other
great reflection of our times is the business about the burgers. It seems that in our great supermarkets you get
what you pay for, rather than what you are being told you are getting.

Felicity Lawrence of “The
Guardian” is an expert in what we eat and how it is produced and gives her
views in today’s article:

The picture
above is the donkey “Pollyanne” who made several appearances at the Royal Opera
House in the chorus of “Carmen”. This
opera concerns employment issues in Spain a couple of centuries
ago. If Pollyanne has entered the food
chain there really should have been a premium price for those burgers.

Today is
also “Burn’s Night” when all true Scots and quite a lot who aren’t but like and
appreciate his works will celebrate his life, songs and poetry. It is the norm for haggis to be consumed as
well as whisky.

Inevitably,
there is some disagreement about the exact recipe for a haggis. But as in the past it was essentially a kind
of meat pudding plus cereals it may well have been variable according to what
was available at the time, also the breeds farmed will have changed down the
centuries.

The
difficulty these days is finding a shop haggis that isn’t packed with the kind
of items that Felicity does not like whatever meat and other items may be
thought to be appropriate to the mix.

What Burn’s
might have made of Glasgow
being given £24 millions of taxpayers’ money to become a “smart city” can only
be guessed. It is fair to say that he
might have been cynical about something called a Technology Strategy Board based
in Swindon, Wiltshire telling Glaswegians how
to be intelligent.

The board
is based in a building called “North Star House”. If you put into search images on your browser
“Great Western Railway locomotive North Star” with luck you will see some fine
pictures of the famous 1837 locomotive.

The idea of
a state agency striving to be at the forefront of a new technical world
relating to an 1837 steam locomotive is interesting. But perhaps you need to go to Davos to listen
to the great and good and the not so great and not so good trying to sort out
their ideas on economics, finance and society

They are
trying to come to terms with a world that is changing more rapidly than their
governments, statisticians and economists can cope with.

The reality
is that they are about as much use as a ball boy fed on cheap burgers.

Thursday, 24 January 2013

Having just
finished a course of antibiotics prescribed by the dentist for something nasty
in the mouth the current story about the impending apocalypse that could occur
if “something isn’t done” about antibiotic resistance was of interest.

Because I
remember a time before antibiotics and recall those who died too soon, others
with damaged lives and many who suffered from a wide variety of causes and
infections the thought that this form of medication might soon be either no
longer available or effective is frightening.

This time
round the blame seems to lie squarely with humanity rather than any
geophysical, extra terrestrial or metaphysical cause. The difficulty is what kind of blame, where,
on whom and what can be done about it.

As ever, it
is very complicated with several strands of argument and not easy to be
absolute. The trouble is that we humans
are wedded to a model of single effect from a single cause with single action
needed to put things right.

One case is
that because it has always been understood by scientists that the battle
against infections is part of a never ending war of attrition then substantial
research, investment and effective action need to be continuing. If ground is conceded to the bugs they soon
might gain the upper hand.

However,
the structure and organisation of the relevant pharmaceuticals industries of
the world have changed down the decades.
It is argued that we have fewer big companies with more complicated
organisations operating to essentially financial targets.

As antibiotics
are no longer the big profit items but much more lower level products with
relatively limited earnings on investment they are no longer a priority. Firms are now more content to jog along with
old products and formulae for the foreseeable future.

So neither
the research is being done nor the long term investment being made. Also, governments have not been forthcoming
to encourage them. In the UK
science research is now heavily dependent on either a small number of companies
or funding from government targeted at the high profit and prestige items.

Antibiotics
are so yesterday in our go go world of money and politics. But this is not the whole story. It is argued that because of our own misuse
of existing antibiotics for a range of reasons we have significantly increased
the risk of accelerating the resistance to antibiotics in humans.

Family
doctors and ordinary health workers have been much too free handing them out in
quantity when neither needed nor appropriate.
For personal hygiene we have become careless of basics, even in
hospitals, relying on drugs and other heavy duty chemicals to do the job
instead.

The result
is that the antibiotics which are used can be disrupted by a lot of the other
stuff and again used wrongly. This is the
way resistance to the old basic antibiotics builds up and increases the need
for extra research and work for new formulae.

Also, we
have been shovelling antibiotics large scale into the production of basic foods
in livestock and poultry. These are part
of our food chain that means that when we go to the supermarket looking for
cheap food offers were are giving ourselves another dose of antibiotics into
the bargain. Horsemeat in the burgers
may be the least of our problems.

It might
have been possible to explain what it was like growing up in a world without
antibiotics to deal with infections and the rest but this blog does not go in
for horror stories.

Wednesday, 23 January 2013

There are
times when certain people might be taken aside by some wise person familiar
with the ways of the wider world and have things said quietly to them. Preferably, the person concerned will have a
command of language and ability to reduce things to brutal simplicities so
there can be no misunderstanding.

David
Cameron, increasingly our Boy of Tears (see Shakespeare’s “Coriolanus”) ought
to be told to lay off the history and concentrate on the future. One good reason is that so much of history is
fiercely debated and open to differing interpretations. Another is that he invariably gets it badly
wrong.

Cranmer in
his blog talks of the speech yesterday on Europe as nailing 95 theses to the
doors of Brussels when it might be more like leaving what is left of a bakers
dozen of humbugs behind the settee.

By 2017 we
may not have Cameron as a Prime Minister but at say HSBC, Clegg might have
become a senior figure at Goldman Sachs, unless Tony Blair finds him a place at
JP Morgan, but then Ed Miliband might have a word with Barclays on his behalf.

But by then
Ed Balls and Harriet Harman may have fixed it for David Miliband to be Prime
Minister. Also, there might not be a United Kingdom in which to hold a referendum but
other entities in a monster muddle with whoever then will be in charge of Europe, a Graeco-Hispanic alliance perhaps?

Another is
Prince Harry, officer in The Royals of the Household Cavalry. Someone might explain to him how the media
works and the wonders that crafty editing can achieve in putting together
features. Any camera following anyone
for a few days can finish up with the choice of hero or villain, savant or idiot.

In the last
couple of weeks, the elegant and intelligent Lucy Worsley has been telling us
about the period of The Regency, 1811 to 1820 when King George III was finally
allowed to have a quiet life because of his illness, but his eldest son, another
bad advertisement for male succession, became Regent to fulfil the role of
monarch.

Her
coverage of Europe was very limited but to her credit did spell out the dire
effects of the 1815 MountTambora eruption across the world and Europe. In the
last episode it dealt with the political instability and problems of the period
that ensued after this and the wars.

This was
one where Britain did have a
part in dealing with Europe with less than
happy results. Restoring the monarchy in
France turned out badly, Spain went into major decline, Russia into manic autocracy and Austria thought the Holy
Roman Empire had been restored.
So there was nothing but trouble afterwards.

In the UK the
revolting masses wanted substantial change challenging the control and ideologies
of the ruling elite. A key demand was
manhood suffrage, one man (not women alas) one vote and equal
representation. Another was annual
Parliaments to make sure the rulers were held to continuing account.

Also fair
taxation, freedom of speech and information and a number of other things were
on the agenda. They were reviled as
liberals and democrats, terms of insult then.
This might be why our present Liberal Democrats are against the notion
of equal representation, want an elite of a long serving House of Lords, do not
want freedom of speech and have given up any idea of fair taxation.

Where was
Cameron’s speech made? It was not the
House of Commons; that once might be the obvious place. Nor was it somewhere like the Manchester Free
Trade Hall, Liverpool St. Georges Hall or Glasgow
or even Deacon Brodie’s in Edinburgh.

Nor was it
at a Conservative Party moot at the Blackpool Winter Gardens or Scarborough Spa
or even Westminster Central Hall.

It was at
Bloomberg, the media financial outfit who broadcast to satellite, 502 on
Sky. This really says it all about his
vision of government and Europe.

He was very
lucky to avoid having a mid speech break of several minutes for advertisements
for gambling firms, washing powders and male perfumes.

Tuesday, 22 January 2013

A few days
ago my mail from the Equalities Commission told me about its latest tranche of
guidance. This related to employment in
the public sector. It brought together
the many and various aspects of the 2010 Equalities legislation to ensure that
the relevant information and advice had been given.

There were
130 pages of it, which may not sound a problem.
But most of this was quite generalised and discursive material
indicating the areas to be considered and some of the principles that were
essential to the legislation. It was
short on detail and specifics apart from a few obvious examples.

The rest is
not left to the imagination or discretion.
Some of it is left to the Human Resources people and others to put into
effect. However, a very great deal is
left to the lawyers and all the panoply of the legal and tribunal systems to
spell out as all the many and differing cases come to light.

The
document is available on Word download from the Equalities Commission and is
readable enough. It takes no longer to
get through than one of those short novelettes of high literature that are
popular with the chattering classes.

Encountering
this, the thought was what stance might be taken? There is all the ideology, ethics, philosophy
and the rest attached to Equality and Human Rights. Then there is the politics of it and allied
to that the implications for education and a lot of other things.

Avoiding
all that, what might be the reaction of your average person in some sort of
management function in the public sector who was going to be lumbered with
administering this, explaining it to both the subordinates and those at higher
decision making levels, whether staff or politicians?

Given the
extent and complexity of other employment legislation and provisions that have
come into being, it is not just trying to make the best of a very difficult
job. It is almost impossible to estimate
or guess at what could happen, why and with what consequences.

Near forty
years ago, experience of the then Health and Safety Act bad enough. Our politicians were reluctant to accept the
advice of our Legal people to put in place the relevant structures. There was no hurry they said.

My boss did
not want to upset them. He then found
himself in court charged with a breach of the Act where the Chairman of the
Magistrates was one the politicians insisting on deferring any decisions or
making arrangements. He had the
privilege of being among the first to be charged.

Inevitably,
they were all anxious to find someone else to blame. It was not clearly explained to them was the
excuse. But it was, our legal people
were good and had explained things with brutal simplicity.

In the
meantime we were scrambling around trying to sort out the employees on the
subject, precious few of whom liked the implications. We were not helped by the trade unions which
were thoroughly obstructive, despite being the ones responsible for demanding
the Act in the first place.

That was
then and it was comparatively simple and with much clearer legislation and
guidance. Looking at the all the recent
material that has poured out and adding both what is following on and some of
the decisions arising trying to manage and operate a public service is now a
legal and administrative minefield.

What is
worse is that then a lot of people around had been in the military and were
used to getting on with things and sorting it out as you went where
necessary. Today, all are infected by
the modern management virus and too many are unable either to decide or to organise
without going round all the houses.

What is
alarming is the sheer burden of work and complexity embedded in all this and
more to the point the related costs.
Quite seriously it looks as though the public sector will be spending so
much time on dealing with its own problems and looking after its own staff that
there will be little or no time to actually run the services.

It is all
too possible that running the public sector on this basis is impossible.

Monday, 21 January 2013

On Sunday
in Germany
the Lower Saxony Regional elections resulted in a complicated situation. The ruling Christian Democratic Union lost
votes, a good many to the more right wing Free Democrats.

However,
the Social Democrats did not do as well as hoped but with the support of the
Green party have a very narrow majority.
In short Angela Merkel’s lot have taken some flak but none of them hit
their targets.

As this
electoral outing was hoped to give some positive indications of what might
happen come the German general election in September, it is now all still to
play for with a wide range of uncertainty as to who will govern in October.

All I can
predict with certainty is that little notice will be taken of the implications
for Europe or the UK
in our media until after the event unless there is something spectacular that
happens.

The risk is
that the complications arising and the moves Germany
makes to deal with unfolding situations in Europe,
at home may induce something spectacular.
There are also “black swan” events to worry about.

If Russia gets much more snow and things there,
including effects on their oil and gas supplies, go badly this could have
unforeseen effects across Europe as well. Europe as we
have known it may suddenly change involuntarily.

In Project
Syndicate, Professor Nouriel Roubini, who famously or infamously, called the
2008 Crash, Dr. Doom in person, thinks that 2013 is going to be sticky all
round. There are serious risks to
stability but no obvious contender for a trigger event.

It could
have been so different. In 1837 when
Queen Victoria
ascended the throne the opportunity was not taken by Parliament then to abandon
male primogeniture in the succession. It
might have made a difference.

Her first
child was a daughter, also Victoria, who married a Prussian Prince Frederick,
becoming Crown Princess and Empress when he succeeded in 1888. Sadly, he lasted only 99 days, already
suffering from cancer. Their first
child, Wilhelm succeeded him as Kaiser.

When Queen Victoria died in January
1901, her daughter, Victoria, was still alive, but died in August of the same
year. If she had succeeded as the first
child, she would have been Queen-Empress of the British
Empire for a few months.

Then in
1901, Kaiser Wilhelm II would also have become King William V of the British
Empire and Emperor of India. Not only would Britain
and Hannover become united again, but there could
have been a British-German political and perhaps trading union.

What kind
of world might we have had now? Think of
a world where neither the USA
nor Russia
might achieve the predominance they did later; and there would have been no
need for a European Union.

Sunday, 20 January 2013

For those
condemned to stay indoors gloomily looking at the weather and watching the week’s
diary descend into chaos you might need cheering up.

Alas, this
is the wrong place to do so today. Here
are four items designed to do exactly the opposite.

The only
good thing is that they are all long and will fill up the time instead of doing
those household jobs you are supposed to be doing.

We are
being told that we must rebuild, or renew or something like that the economies
we have had to maintain or increase prosperity.
In the 1970’s there was much the same attitude.

But this
was impossible then to return to the previous economies, the issue was how to
deal with the new ones. Having made too
many mistakes and blunders in this we are now in a crisis.

So in the
second decade of the 21st Century we are going into a different
world which has economies quite different in structure and function. We cannot admit this and continue to blunder
on regardless.

This
explains the critical nature of the following items.

Rowan does
not like Barclays Bank and in an earlier century would have been demanding its
executives finish their days at Execution Dock.

Friday, 18 January 2013

As we put
the cover over the car yesterday a neighbour commented on us being ready for
the snow. My reply was that we were
seeking to prevent the snow. Experience
and previous data suggested that putting the cover over the car would almost
certainly prevent bad weather affecting our patch.

Now it is
snowing. There has to be an in-house
inquest into why our forecast and predicted outcomes failed to achieve our
targets. The blame game will certainly
be played and I am onto a loser.

The above
may be abstract, to put it politely, but it does have more logic, reliable data
and relevance to the immediate situation than a lot of the latest key debate on
the issue about migration. Because EU
rules on movement now allow greater freedom of scope for people in Romania and Bulgaria the question is how many,
what sort and where they will go?

Were is not
for the ability of our species of hominid to move around and to assert our
authority and genes over those of other species the human race would not be as
we know it, Captain. Inevitably, we have
congratulated ourselves as being the best and brightest of the bunch as the
reason for our supremacy.

Personally,
I am becoming less and less sure about this the more we discover about the very
ancient past. Capable certainly, but
also aggressive, caring little about our impact on our surroundings, merciless
in victory, normally, and with a destructive streak that we have never managed
to control.

Also, we
are prone to strange notions and become fixated about them to the point of
happily and systematically slaughtering not just other species but many of our
own. Often cousins who are much more
distant have differences that have been enough for them to deny any ideas of
toleration or checks on their ambitions.

The trouble
is that when a group becomes the victor and dominant it has been the case in a
great deal of history that they have made themselves vulnerable to collapse
either for internal reasons or because they do not understand that they are now
on the receiving end from a lot of other peoples who do not like them.

This is
just matters that occur within the species.
One difficulty we have never quite understood or grasped is that we live
on a planet which has allowed us to exist because of very special and benign conditions. The downside is that these change over time,
sometimes slowly and sometimes rapidly.

One day Pompeii is a wealthy,
active advanced town with desirable property and what passes for a good
lifestyle for the period. The next day
it is a heap of dust and what remained of the population has fled. Once, we are told, the SaharaDesert
was a green and well watered land. So
what happened when all that changed?

One feature
of recent millennia in human trading was the Silk Road
between East and West. It did not remain
fixed but changed over time due both to climatic population shift and the
effect of wars and economic changes. We
have little idea of just how many people went in one direction or another.

What has
changed in recent decades is that the development of modern transit systems and
networks allows movement far more rapid, relatively much less costly and in far
greater numbers than ever before. The
economics of this may change adversely if movement costs do rise but if these are
countered by the financial and personal advantages to be gained by the
individuals at present who do move then movement will occur.

The
problem, as with so many others, is that we are relying on immediate past data
and experience to guide us for a very different and challenging future. We have not yet begun to try to understand
the real world we are living in. It is
not enough to pretend we are all nice people and singing each others songs will
do.

The
history, even of the recent past, does not make comfortable reading. For those who add to genetics, archaeology,
climatology, world history and demography the theories of chaos and complexity
it is at least worrying.

What we in
the UK
are said to know is that there are around four thousand known terrorists who
the Home Office would like to deport but cannot because of current
legislation. To this could be added an
estimate for those unknown. Given the
number of untraceable illegal migrants this is arguable.

Given the
overall world situation they could easily be joined by many others. As things stand the terrorists active now in Algeria and other places, should they make it to
the UK
will be welcomed and supported if they could find a family. They will have in support many who will
assist them in the logistics of it all.

It is
possible that we could shortly have a greater number of terrorists here than
the actual active and combat element of the British Army with supporting groups
etc. also rather larger and with access to more reliable funding. Unlike our troops they would not be thrown on
the scrap heap if no longer needed.

Wednesday, 16 January 2013

According
to what is in the newspapers, this is a sequence that is due to happen in the
coming years.

2014:

The
Referendum on Scotland
is due to take place. Who votes is not
clear. At the moment it seems that those
on the electoral roll in Scotland will, whether or not they are Scottish
together with the sixteen plus with British citizenship (or not). But Scottish people whose work has taken them
to elsewhere in the UK
will not vote.

2015

According
to Alex Salmond if the vote is in favour of whatever question may be asked to
remove Scotland from the UK this
transfer of sovereignty will begin.

But in 2015
there is to be a General Election for the UK.
What will be the position in the Scottish constituencies if the transfer
has not by then occurred but may do so later that year?

While this
is going on, it is assumed that the question of Scotland and the EU will be
resolved. The latest story is that Scotland will
remain in/join the EU but not be part of the Euro Zone. A theory is that Scotland may continue with the
pound sterling.

The
assumption is that this will be accomplished easily because Europe
will be entranced by having better access to all those Scottish wind farms,
fisheries (what’s left of them) and oil supplies.

2016

Scottish
elections will take place. It is not
clear at present how “independent” or what spheres of government Scotland might
have in Europe because Europe is in the throes of major political changes
bearing on the sovereignty of each of the member nations.

2017 And
Beyond

This is
unknown territory, if only because the complexities outlined above leave a great
deal to be determined What can be said
is that the oil is likely to remain in the hands of the oil companies,
determined by the grant of oil rights.

The oil
rights will be arrived at by negotiation between the major companies and the
government which has those rights. These
may depend on the what is happening with oil supplies, prices and production
costs, there is uncertainty in this field.

At present
nobody, least of all Europe itself, knows what
governance and what powers the EU, more fully united, will have and what will
be left to the member states.

What, I
wonder may happen if the EU determines that all the maritime territorial rights,
especially oil, will be a function of the EU and not of the member states?

Tuesday, 15 January 2013

When
Cameron and the Coalition decided to fix Parliamentary terms at five years, did
they have any regard at all for the longer sweep of history in the UK? Since the beginning of the 18th
Century through to the present there have been many times in the past when
politics went into spasm and governments into paralysis.

The way out
of this was to call a general election.
This was not always successful if the political breakdown was deep
seated and persistent. But there were
times when the politicians, faced with a possible election, came to some sort
of agreement or compromise.

In the
deeper past coalitions, sometimes of unlikely partners, might occur and there
were often movements of interest and support to contend with. The 1920’s and 1930’s was a time of shifting
ground and uncertainty. This had the
effect then of giving authority to the relatively recent professional civil
service and Bank of England.

After 1945
this changed and until 2010 there was no formal coalition of parties. There was a period between 1974 and 1979 when
not only did the Labour government go full term, but it relied on Liberal votes
to keep it going before going down to defeat.
The problems in the Liberal Party in that period did not allow them to
claim much power.

The
conventional thought was that a system that delivered majority governments was
necessarily good because it meant more stability and enabled politicians to
exert some sort of democratic control.

This was
not necessarily the case in that both the majority parties had elements within
them that occasioned strife and uncertainty.
Also, in the 1950 to 2010 period a surprising number of governments did
not go full term between elections for a variety of reasons.

One was
that to go full term allowed too much scope for rebels or awkward squads in the
parties. Another was that it left too
much to chance and untoward events.
Also, governments might begin to run out of steam. Whatever the particular reasons it was
reckoned that to decide the election date gave advantage to the ruling party.

What has been
forgotten is that coalitions and fixed terms of office do not go together. The ability to go to the electorate at any
time has always been a useful corrective and safeguard for a government faced
with a chaotic or impossible situation.

In the USA and
other places the endless squabbling, brinkmanship and wheeler dealing arising
from the electoral systems may be a useful exercise in democracy at some times,
but in crises or periods of real difficulty can be a handicap and an invitation
to flawed decisions. At least the USA system with
rolling elections offers more opportunities for choice.

At present
we are told that we have a Coalition government now beginning to disagree and
dispute about more issues than it is in agreement with. There is a Liberal Democrat Party that is
neither Liberal nor democratic, actively blocking changes needed to readjust
the electoral system to be more representative.

We are told
by a former insider that the Government only deals with thirty per cent of its
business the rest being left to rubber stamping European legislation etc. and
to “updating” by a civil service that is not professional but interlocked with
the lobby groups and other outside spheres of management.

There are
all the signs that the Cameron government could soon go into a phase of stasis
with no way out. That the campaign for
the next election has begun is not in doubt.
Only instead of perhaps the electorate making its choices within months
we are stuck to 2015. Worse, if that
election does not resolve issues we are then still stuck until 2020.

So with a
government that controls only thirty per cent of its current business and
unable to make effective decisions in that sphere, it is an open invitation for
all the either irresponsible or worse dogmatic destructive elements to make
mischief. Given the vulnerability of the
UK
at present this is very dangerous.

Another
worry is that apparently the Labour Party is targeting one hundred seats in the
House of Commons for priority attention.
A report suggests that the Conservative Party has a list of forty key
seats. So what about the other five
hundred plus and their interests?

For either
party to assume that in these the existing incumbents or their ordinary
replacements are safe may not be wise in the event of further falls in the
number of voters with perhaps a drift to activist extremes.

Even so,
the implication is that neither of the two major parties will attend to the
actual full basis of their traditional support or their wishes. This could mean that the next election will
be fought to buy the votes of select minority interests who could swing the key
seats.

Given the
likely economic and political problems developing in the next couple of years
we may then have both before and after the next elections governments that are
in no way democratic, that do not really govern, simply applying political
cosmetics to the flow of events, are locked into systems beyond their control
and rely on a management cult civil service and agencies that simply go their
own way.

And it all
depends on being able to recycle the growing debt. Tony Blair, it is said, has opened a market
trading desk in his Mayfair offices. Does he, I wonder, see the UK as a major
sell option to boost his fortunes?

Monday, 14 January 2013

The “Golden
Globes” presentations in Los Angeles
have me breaking out in the first symptoms of Chronic Awards Fatigue of the
year. There is no doubt about the amount
of thought, energy, effort and the rest the performers put into their
productions Nor is there doubt about the
importance of crucial favourable publicity to their status and incomes.

It is that
there are many awards ceremonies to come and a great deal of media time and
effort to be expended in speculations about outcomes, gossip, news, the events
themselves and the publicity follow ups.
We are supposed to lap this up and allow it the importance that the
media outlets insist that it should have.

Not only
does it distract us and more to the point deflect us from attention on other
matters but it means that there is a lot out there we should know more about
which gets little or no mention. There
is nothing new about this. Myths have
long been more important than realities.

In the
histories of the Second World War there is sometimes reference to the equipment
our troops were given to do their fighting but often not critical enough and
without making the point that some of the inadequacies had the effect of
lengthening the war.

On BBC2 in
the last couple of weeks there have been two programmes following the 5th
Royal Tank Regiment, “The Filthy Fifth”, 5RTR, a unit which went from Egypt and
El Alamein in The Desert War, into Italy and then to be amongst the first to
land in Normandy in June 1944.

It was part
of the 7th Armoured Division, whose tac sign was the Jerboa, better
known as The Desert Rat. It was said
that only fifty men of the originals were still there at the end.

At least
the presenter, Mark Urban, had served in the Army and knew the inside of a tank
and with the few veterans left managed to put across both the reality of war
with a critique of the situations that the men were faced with and how they
were equipped to do so.

A key part
of the story was the various tanks 5RTR were given. What was clear was that throughout the war
the British designed and built tanks were inadequate for the task, vulnerable
in battle and cost many lives. At the
stages when the tanks were either American built or formed the basis, it was
better.

When in
1943 5RTR were brought back to East Anglia to prepare for the Normandy Landings
they were dismayed to be issued with the new Cromwell tank which was still not
capable of taking on the German Tigers and moreover a death trap. When in France heavy losses were sustained.

Also, the
German anti-tank artillery was superior enabling them to have tactical
advantages. The reason why the Allies
progressed was that they could replace both the equipment and the men quickly
whereas the Germans could not. But the
progress was a lot slower than it might have been.

Had the UK
Armoured Divisions been equipped with both tanks and related artillery that at
least matched the Germans what might have happened? The Desert War might have been a lot shorter
for one. More important the British may
have been able to break out from the Normandy Landings much earlier than they
did and to cross the Rhine before the winter
of 1944 to 1945 set in.

Eventually,
the UK
government did come up with a decent tank, the Centurion, but that first
appeared just after the War ended. Had a
tank like this been coming out of the factories three or so years earlier the
war might have been different.

Why were
the British tanks so poor? Why did it
take so long for the British to design and produce something better? The reality was that many brave men were left
to make the best of second rate weaponry and winning depended not on what they
had to fight with but the ability to replace the losses.

At the end
of the war there were many ceremonies and many awards given and hard earned
ones. There was all the publicity of
victory and the myths of our supremacy.
The men were good enough but the way they were equipped and treated by
the government was another matter.

Sunday, 13 January 2013

Driving
around normally, there are times when for all the care and awareness there are
things you just miss or do not see until late.
Experience tells you when this is more likely, the half light of early
morning or evening, rain, patchy mist, busy conditions, dark clothed
pedestrians, cyclists, motor cycles in the blind spot, trucks with far away
number plates and those too close (the bumper stickers I call them) among others.

On another
level, experience and history tells me that there are governments and many in
public affairs, who may be educated, knowledgeable about many things, in the
most senior positions and the rest who simply neither see nor understand what
is coming and the effects it might have.

This may
happen because the mindset they have, the job they are in and the ideas current
at the time make them either blind to or unwilling to accept either events or
information that are in conflict. This
is especially if there are notable unwelcome downsides.

As for
those in any senior or professional position, if they discern something coming
along that is bad news for others, especially those senior to them or on whom
they depend, it can be very difficult.
If they warn, they can finish up being blamed for anything adverse or be
shunned, sacked or singled out for some rough treatment.

In the
world of politics, economics and government there are certainly a few things
down the decades which I missed, did not fully understand or failed to
recognise certain features that should have indicated that things were not
going to plan or as they were supposed to be.

What can be
especially difficult is that if it dawns on you that the people in charge and
who are calling the shots simply do not know what they are talking about or do
not have the relevant expertise to make an informed judgement. I have met rather too many of these in the
past.

All too
often they have blagged or blustered their way upwards and are determined both
to be the deciders and will brook no questioning or opposition. So they are just as likely to take us all
down a lot faster than they took themselves up.
One feature is that they make promises impossible to fulfil but ensure
others will take the blame.

Is all of
this sounding very familiar and are names and current issues of one sort or
another coming to mind? One horror that
comes to mind is whether any of our current crop of political leaders are
competent to run any form of government or are even half aware of what is
really going on or what might or must happen.

Another is
given the nature of the media and its’ interests is whether the people that
elect them are any better placed. Worse
is that many of the people who are elected and who they appoint to crucial
offices are neither expert and too often with their own agendas, usually
related to immediate financial interests.

So
politically and internationally what is round the next corner, why apparently
did nobody see it coming and was it the fault of those who predicted it?